California's AB32 and Green House Gas Reduction

The Terminator is now affectionately known as the Environmental Governor. A lot of what follows was directly copied from other articles, so I do not claim it as my own.

AB32 the “Global Warming Solutions Act” establishes mandates to reduce California statewide greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) back to 1990 levels by 2020, an approximately 30% reduction from forecasted emissions. On January 1, 2008, sectors identified as significant GHG emitters (electricity producers, petroleum refiners, and cement processors) are required to start tracking 2008 emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been put in charge of implementation by January 1, 2012. However, they are also authorized to take earlier action.

AB32 will establish a local market for emissions trading, by setting a baseline and then receiving credit for producing less GHG than the baseline creating an emissions offset. Since carbon “cap and trade” markets are currently voluntary and unregulated, the nature and characteristics of carbon offsets vary significantly between willing buyers and sellers. CARB is preparing to endorse the CCAR’s Forestry Project Protocol for generating voluntary offsets, thereby providing a "seal of approval" for offsets generated using this protocol.

To qualify for greenhouse gas emission offsets, a reduction in GHG emissions must be deemed “real, permanent, measurable, verifiable, and additional”. “Additional” (similar to the concept of "surplus") means that the reduction in emissions reflect a deliberateness of purpose with regard to reducing GHG emissions and . That is, the reduction activity would not have taken place in the absence of offsets. Since energy efficiency is mandated by policy and subsidized by the government, any GHG reductions achieved through energy efficiency in California is unlikely to meet the criteria of “additionality”.

AB32 will have a broad reach within the environmental planning world. The current debate suggests that GHG now should have a significant consideration in the CEQA process. It seems as though many lawsuits will be following.